guns taken

[TH4]

Personally I would let no firearms officer or police officer into my house without either a warrant or a previously booked appointment and would film all contact with them for my own safety. Just because I own firearms is does not mean I have less rights than non firearms owners. If the officer says he suspects a crime is being committed then he must be able to explain what the crime is that he suspects and why.

 

[Free range rob]

Personally I would let no firearms officer or police officer into my house without either a warrant or a previously booked appointment and would film all contact with them for my own safety. Just because I own firearms is does not mean I have less rights than non firearms owners. If the officer says he suspects a crime is being committed then he must be able to explain what the crime is that he suspects and why.

It’s only recently I’ve given much thought about siezure and revocation due to the press.
But I’ve always told the Mrs, NEVER EVER let anyone we don’t know/expecting into the house no matter how plausible they seem, if it’s the police then it’s carried out on the doorstep and to enter they must produce a signed warrant unless it’s by prior arrangement.
We don’t operate an open house policy and we don’t like visitors or strangers in these parts

 

[Greenmist]

Because someone has to take a stand?
The current situation is deteriorating before your eyes and nothing is being done to stop it, you need guidelines and support from your national organisations, not criticism or condemnation of those whose certs and firearms are being removed unless it can be established or demonstrated that they are a a danger to themselves or others.
Currently you are allowing the constitutional defences and protections against unlawful entry, search and seizure enjoyed by everyone else in the country, even convicted criminals, to be suspended because the person concerned has an SGC or FAC.
When seizures are made, there is no attempt being made by the police to justify or clarify the decision. They are hiding behind the “ we don't comment on individual cases” defence, but its blindingly obvious at this stage that its not just individual cases, its a new policy.
Meanwhile, the past history and character of the victims are dragged under the microscope on social media in an attempt to justify the police action and they are left to fend for themselves in a legal quagmire where all the advantages and most of the rules favour the official side.
The police can’t lose, they’re playing with your money, they can go all the way to the House of Lords and it won’t cost them personally a single penny, which seems to be what they're counting on, no personal responsibility, its “ policy”.
None of us is perfect, just about everyone has something reprehensible lurking in the past and people change opinions and associations as they mature.

I agree completely, in my opinion ALL shooting organaisations are toothless, but I wouldn't expect the RAC to rescue me when I'm a member of the AA

 

[Dunwaters]

I agree completely, in my opinion ALL shooting organaisations are toothless, but I wouldn't expect the RAC to rescue me when I'm a member of the AA

They wouldn’t be rescuing you, they’d be supporting the interests of their own members. The benefit to you would be real but incidental, just as it would if the AA brought a class action against, just as an example, VW for misrepresenting emissions and economy figures. If the courts found in favour of the AA, then both RAC members and every other VW owner would be in a very strong position to make a claim and more importantly, VW would be on notice that they would be probably on a loser contesting them.

 

[Liveonce]

The orgs can unite for the benefit of game shooting so why not for legal issues? we are weak as we have so many different organisations rather than the likes of the American NRA, their is strength in numbers if all within the same organisation.

 

[Greenmist]

They wouldn’t be rescuing you, they’d be supporting the interests of their own members. The benefit to you would be real but incidental, just as it would if the AA brought a class action against, just as an example, VW for misrepresenting emissions and economy figures. If the courts found in favour of the AA, then both RAC members and every other VW owner would be in a very strong position to make a claim and more importantly, VW would be on notice that they would be probably on a loser contesting them.

You seem to think I'm disagreeing with you, I'm not.

 

[User00053]

Now basc no longer do what they did, who would be the best organisation to join purely from a insurance and legal help stand point do we think?

 

[Greenmist]

Now basc no longer do what they did, who would be the best organisation to join purely from a insurance and legal help stand point do we think?

I don't believe any of them can help legally in these situations, the authorities can prolong the case as long as they wish until funds run out

 

[User00053]

I don't believe any of them can help legally in these situations, the authorities can prolong the case as long as they wish until funds run out

Ok thanks, so from insurance for members, any recommendations going forwards please?

 

[Dunwaters]

You seem to think I'm disagreeing with you, I'm not.

Sorry if that’s the way it seemed, but I’m watching this situation develop with increasing frustration.
Your national bodies appear to be sitting around in a circle staring at each other and waiting for the first blink.
At the very minimum I would expect them to issue formal guidelines and back it up with legal advice if required.
That wouldn’t cost much and could be a joint venture.

 

[Dunwaters]

I don't believe any of them can help legally in these situations, the authorities can prolong the case as long as they wish until funds run out

On that point I would disagree, if a national organisation can’t or wont fund a legal challenge to something that has the potential to negatively impact every firearms owner in the country, who will?
You need to run one case to a court of record to establish the precedent,
We were lucky, we had an individual challenge the the authorities policies successfully as far as the district court ( if my shakey memory is correct ), the NARGC took the case from there and ran it all the way to the Supreme Court. They were successful at every stage and at every stage the Government appealed to the higher court but ultimately the law trumped the illegal policy.
The police will continue to act as they are until either that policy is changed or the courts tell them to stop.

 

[Greenmist]

On that point I would disagree, if a national organisation can’t or wont fund a legal challenge to something that has the potential to negatively impact every firearms owner in the country, who will?
You need to run one case to a court of record to establish the precedent,
We were lucky, we had an individual challenge the the authorities policies successfully as far as the district court ( if my shakey memory is correct ), the NARGC took the case from there and ran it all the way to the Supreme Court. They were successful at every stage and at every stage the Government appealed to the higher court but ultimately the law trumped the illegal policy.
The police will continue to act as they are until either that policy is changed or the courts tell them to stop.

How many times have a shooting organisation taken on a police authority in an instance like this and won please, genuine question

 

[Dunwaters]

How many times have a shooting organisation taken on a police authority in an instance like this and won please, genuine question

I dont know of any examples on your side of the Irish Sea, but nationally you have a very poor record of legal challenges to just about everything except racial discrimination and gender issues.
Over here we had a successful challenge to firearms confiscation and the refusal to grants certificates for certain firearms as a matter of policy. The courts found that the Garda and government had to comply with the law and that policy should be in accordance with the law.
The whole sorry saga took about 20 years to unravel from the stage where the initial legal surrender of firearms under a temporary custody order was deemed to be illegal. The legal action was pursued by our NARGC.
Court cases are only expensive if you lose, the winner gets their costs and maybe a few bob in damages besides.

 

[Greenmist]

Court cases are only expensive if you lose, the winner gets their costs and maybe a few bob in damages besides.

I don't think that is the case in the UK, hence why its so expensive to fight the authorities, hopefully someone with more legal knowledge will answer but I'm sure costs are not awarded to the firearms user or perhaps aren't covered by the police

 

[Stalker62]

I don't think that is the case in the UK, hence why its so expensive to fight the authorities, hopefully someone with more legal knowledge will answer but I'm sure costs are not awarded to the firearms user or perhaps aren't covered by the police

The Judge can make a ruling on who pays costs (if any) and what proportion thereof.

Bit of a lottery I am afraid.

 

[Automan]

I've not read everyone's post so apologies if this is a repeat question.
If the police confiscate your firearms and revoke your certificate where do you stand financially because even if they kept the rifles you should be able to recover the scopes and mounts.

 

[Whitefront]

If you go to the film clip which sparked this thread and scroll to 07.12, and you'll see the chap say that he'd discussed the background details with a " firearms expert" at the NGO, who allegedly advised him that even if he went to court, he didn't think he stood much of a chance.

Now, did the NGO person mean that the court is biased, or did he mean that, having heard more details than we have, he felt the grounds for a legal challenge were weak? The NGO is a small organisation, admittedly, but remember it did take on the might of Natural England/Defra over buzzard licences, at a cost of £150k, and won. (As for BASC, I recall that some years ago they supported a legal challenge against a chief constable who wouldn't allow handguns for humane dispatch, and won. God knows what that cost.) In short, the evidence show organisations large or small will mount legal challenges if they are both winnable and important for the wider shooting community.

I don't know anything about this particular revocation case other than what we see on the film, but I think we need to be careful about drawing conclusions without knowing the full story.

 

[25 Sharps]

Undoubtedly, but thats no indication that he posed a risk to himself or anyone else.
The problem in virtually all cases mentioned is that FAC’s and firearms are being removed without a shred of evidence being produced by the police to justify that decision. Theres also no independent review or appeals procedure.
You can be as unsupportive and critical as you like of the individuals who’ve lost their FAC’s so far, but the clear developing trend is that the police can and will take anyones guns and revoke anyones certs whenever they choose without stating a reason or having to justify that reason in court.
The police are also not required to give notification of the decision and may arrive at your door at any time, demand access, enter and search without warrant and confiscate private property, even when that property is not actually a firearm.
This new right of entry search and seizure currently only applies to otherwise law abiding citizens who happen to have a licensed firearm, to enter anyone else’s home they have to go to court and get a warrant or be invited in.
And quite a few of you guys appear to be happy with the way this policy is evolving.
Don’t just look at the individual decisions to revoke in isolation, look at the the developing trends in police policies and actions.
You’re well on the way to losing your certs and guns whenever the police decide to take them.

Well you say that but he did a TV interview and put across the opinion that people should be allowed to hold and use guns for self defence in mainland Britian, looking at the report he also said the French should arm themselves for self defence; the police may have felt he had an unhealthy interest on using firearms on other people. He also openly admitted on a forum that he went to Bisley with a non FAC holding friend and left his friend in sole charge of the rifle and ammunition on the range whilst he went to the range office.

He also put a lot of bad information across on his channel that was just wrong and irresponsible, he used to be very active on the Airgun BBS forum and talked a lot of rubbish, I wasn't passing comment on the rest of what you say above, just that Callum is probably not best placed to give FAC holders advice or to actually continue his channel.

BTW his revocation happened 6 years ago and has nothing to do with the current situation . . . .

 

[Oracle]

Limited aspects of case law or similar in Firearms Licensing although quite often the parties concerned will make reference to findings on previous firearms licensing appeals which the Court may wish to take notice of.

21.7 Section 44 of the 1968 Act was amended by section 41 of the 1997 Act. This provided two points of clarification in respect of the appeal process:
(a) that an appeal shall be determined on the merits (and not by way of review), (R v Acton Crown Court (ex parte Varney) 1984); and
(b) that the Court or Sheriff hearing an appeal may consider any evidence or other matter, whether or not it was available when the decision of the chief officer was taken (Kavanagh v Devon and Cornwall Constabulary 1974).

However there is case law in respect of costs against the Chief Officer should an Appeal be successful, however the Court will normally take note that;

21.10 As a general rule, no order for costs should be made against the police where an applicant is successful on appeal, unless, as an exception to the general rule, the police’s decision was unreasonable, or the police have acted in bad faith, in which case costs can be awarded against the police in those limited cases. The main concern of the police should always be public protection.

 

[Pete6.5]

No, and to be frank, if I was seizing firearms, then neither would I.

If, however, the seizure is anticipated or indeed by "appointment" then it can be done without any drama.

If the Police are turning up via abseil and distraction devices, then all bets are off...

If they have to take a person's firearms for a good reason. Why can't the police show some sense/compassion to a difficult situation and and allow 15mins for you or them to strip thermal or the scope. ( In any situation respect should be shown to somebody's hard earned property)